Page:The Red Man and the White Man in North America.djvu/167

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
INDIAN FOOD AND COOKERY.
147

pared by being laid upon the coals or roasted on a stake, the larger part of it required to be stewed in heated water. As their own vessels, though often called caldrons, would not bear exposure to the fire or a dry heat, an ingenious alternative was resorted to. The clay or wooden vessel was filled with water, into which were thrown stones brought to a glowing heat in a clear fire close at hand. The process was repeated, if necessary, as the stones were removed and renewed. Into this water were cast the materials of a repast. They were often most incongruous; for the Indians delighted in a mess, a pot-pourri, though no skill or regard was spent upon selection or adaptation to the palate. In a banquet prepared by savage allies of the English after a bloody and protracted conflict with the French and their red allies, some of the English soldiers, though well-nigh famished, lost their craving at the sight of a Frenchman's hand floating in the stew. The conglomeration of heterogeneous articles of food in the Indian's kettle was simply another act of conformity with Nature; as not what they ate, but the eating enough of anything, was their chief object, and it was the stomach, not the palate, which they had to satisfy. It is curious to note that down to quite recent years in New England, in the families of husbandmen, domestic usage approximated to this Indian habit, — vegetables, pastry, and meat (fresh or salt) being cooked in one kettle, served on one great platter, and dispensed after the same miscellaneous fashion. At their great feasts, with a profusion of viands which might have served the Indians for successive distinct courses, the same medley method for cooking in caldrons all manner of fish, flesh, and fowls, dogs, deer's meat, buffalo, skunks, raccoons, etc., with maize, and various roots, pumpkins, squashes, beans, and peas, was the approved style of festivity, with variations more from necessity than of preference. Generally the family had but one meal in common through the day. But each member of it was at liberty to eat when